KITTREDGE, J.: In this medical negligence
action, Marty and Tracy Cole appeal a general defense verdict for Dr. Pratibha
P. Raut and her medical practice. The Coles argue the circuit court erred in
charging the jury on the defense of assumption of risk. We affirm pursuant
to the “two issue” rule.

FACTS/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Coles brought this action individually and on behalf of their son, Kyle,
who was born on February 22, 1997. The Coles alleged medical negligence against
Dr. Raut and her medical practice. The complaint essentially asserted that
Dr. Raut failed to deliver Kyle in a timely manner by Cesarean section (C-section)
birth, and failed to timely respond to warning signs that Kyle was suffering
from the effects of oxygen distress prior to birth. Dr. Raut and her practice
denied negligence, and asserted various defenses, including contributory negligence.

Dr. Raut and her practice sought to amend their pleadings at trial to include
assumption of risk as a separate, affirmative defense. Initially, the court
ruled that the “comparative fault affirmative defense covered assumption of
the risk.” When Dr. Raut and her practice renewed their motion, the court elected
to reserve its ruling on the motion until the close of evidence. After all
evidence was presented, the court struck the comparative negligence defense
raised by Dr. Raut and her practice. However, over the Coles’ objection, the
court elected to charge the jury on the affirmative defense of assumption of
risk. [1]

At trial, both parties provided expert testimony regarding the various issues
stemming from the care rendered by Dr. Raut in the delivery process, including
Dr. Raut’s timing in ordering a C-section. [2] Predictably, the Coles presented expert testimony
that Dr. Raut deviated from the standard of care which resulted in injury, and
Dr. Raut presented expert testimony that she did not deviate from the applicable
standard of care while providing prenatal care to Mrs. Cole or in the delivery
of her child. A jury issue was therefore presented on the malpractice - negligence
claim.

The court instructed the jury that the Coles were entitled to prevail if the
jury found Dr. Raut was negligent “in at least one or more of the ways alleged
… [and that] the defendants’ negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s
injuries.” When later charging the jury on the assumption of risk affirmative
defense, the court stated:

I charge you, if you find that the plaintiff freely and voluntarily exposed
herself to a known danger and understood and appreciated the danger, then
in such circumstance your verdict would be for the defendant. However, I
charge you, on the other hand, if you find that the plaintiff’s injuries and
negligence were the result of the defendant’s negligence, then in such circumstance
your verdict would be for the plaintiff.

The jury returned a general defense verdict. Judgment was
entered for Dr. Raut and her medical practice. The Coles appeal.

DISCUSSION

The Coles argue the circuit court erred in instructing the jury on the assumption
of risk defense, contending the defense is inapplicable to the facts of the
case. We do not reach this issue, however, because the jury returned a general
verdict for the defense, and that verdict is independently supported by the
unchallenged submission of the negligence claim to the jury.
[3] This principle is generally referred to as the “two issue” rule.
The rule is based on the principle that reversal is inappropriate where no error
is found as to one of the issues that may independently support the jury’s verdict.
SeeAnderson v. South Carolina Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp.,
317 S.C. 280, 282, 454 S.E.2d 353, 355 (Ct.App. 1995) (“If a verdict is susceptible
of two constructions, one of which will uphold it and the other which will defeat
it, the one which will uphold it is preferred”). Moreover, a general verdict
is presumptively valid. SeeGold Kist, Inc. v. Citizens & Southern
Nat’l Bank of South Carolina, 286 S.C. 272, 282, 333 S.E.2d 67, 73 (Ct.App.
1985) (“The appellate courts of this State exercise every reasonable presumption
in favor of the validity of a general verdict”).

Because the present case involved both an issue
of negligence—properly submitted to the jury—and the challenged defense of assumption
of risk, we are bound to affirm the defense verdict if the verdict may be sustained
on the negligence claim. SeeId. (“[W]here a jury returns a general
verdict in a case involving two or more issues or defenses and its verdict is
supported as to at least one issue or defense, the verdict will not be reversed”).
The Coles concede the negligence claim involved disputed issues of fact and
was properly submitted to the jury. The general defense verdict may therefore
be sustained on the negligence claim. SeeAnderson, 317 S.C.
at 282, 454 S.E.2d at 355 (Applying the “two-issue” rule where case submitted
to jury on only one cause of action, negligence, and only one defense, contributory
negligence).

CONCLUSION

Since the general defense verdict may be sustained
on the negligence cause of action, the judgment of the circuit court is

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., and HUFF, J., concur.

[1] We recognize that in
South Carolina the doctrine of assumption of risk was largely subsumed by
the law of comparative negligence in Davenport v. Cotton Hope Plantation,
333 S.C. 71, 508 S.E.2d 565 (1998). However, the cause of action in this
present case arose in February 1997, prior to Davenport.

[2] Mrs. Cole was admitted
to the hospital on February 21, 1997. The labor period was prolonged, and
the record contains a detailed history of the labor process. We need not
discuss this factual background in light of our disposition of this appeal.

[3] While Dr. Raut objected to the general verdict
form, the Coles did not.